My hero and teacher, Dr. John Gerstner, in dealing with one of the errors of dispensationalism, its rejection of the doctrine of limited atonement, referred to this error as, “beating the ‘L’ out of TULIP.” Though we believe the five points of Calvinism are of a piece, that to reject one is at best to confuse the others, at worst to deny the others, it is limited atonement that most people have a struggle with. And this text is a common proof-text for those wanting to affirm that it was the purpose of Christ that He should suffer the wrath of the Father due to all men for all sins.
This error, like many such errors on this issue, is at base a failure to understand the context of the New Testament Church. Two hundred years later the church struggled with the issues of the Trinity and the incarnation. Fifteen hundred years later they struggled with how to understand justification. But the first century church, by and large, had one great issue to deal with- what about the Gentiles? Huge sections of the book of Acts cover this issue. Galatians deals with this issue. I Peter deals with the issue. Even Hebrews, in a mirroring kind of way, deals with the issue.
In the time that Jesus took on flesh, we need to remember, even pious Jews looked at the world as being divided into two kinds of people- God’s people the Jews, and the rest, the dogs. God had since the time of Abraham dealt with a single people. Now everything was changing. At the beginning, the church was made up mostly of Abraham’s ethnic heirs. It was not long, however, before the Spirit was poured out amongst the Gentiles. Soon after Gentiles made up a majority of the church.
So what is John telling us? If he means what our friends who don’t believe in limited atonement think he means, just as with the rest of what they would see as “proof-texts,” then he means too much. That is, if the text means that if it was the intent of Jesus to cover all the sins of all people, then we can rest assured that all people will be in heaven. The text, if this perspective is correct, then teaches not unlimited atonement, but unlimited salvation, universalism. How could a person suffer in hell if his sins had already been covered? Instead what John is telling us here, in context, is simple enough. Jesus did not come to atone only for the sins of the Jews. God’s plan was neither to condemn all the Gentiles, nor to send a savior different from Jesus to cover the sins of the Gentiles. Instead, Jesus came and suffered for the sins of all of God’s people, the Jews and the Gentiles, who are one people.
The good news isn’t that Jesus merely made it possible for all people to be saved. The good news is that all those who are His have had their sins covered. And in Him we are all one, with neither Jew nor Greek. The gospel is about one kingdom, one king, and one people, the people of God who are all those for whom Jesus suffered. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. He is indeed the propitiation for the sins of the world, for those whom He chose before the foundation of time, whether they be in Boone, North Carolina, or Yangon, Myanmar, whether they be in Antioch or in Fort Wayne whether they be in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, or the outermost parts of the world.
There are, in the end, essentially only two forms of ethics. One approach is pragmatic, the other principled. Pragmatism on its own, of course, is always incomplete. That is to say, we can’t answer the question of what works until we know what it works for. Ethics, for instance, in Soviet Russia affirmed that the good is that which promotes the interests of the party. Utilitarian ethics affirms that the good is that which promotes the most happiness for the most people. Whatever you plug in as the goal, pragmatism then picks what best serves the goal.
The principled approach, on the other hand, does not look to the future and guess what will come to pass. It affirms that we are called to do what is right because it is right, not because it will create a hoped for outcome. Indeed it would go so far as to say we ought to do what is right even if it were to bring a bad outcome.
Most Christians naturally lean toward the principled approach. Paul tells children, “Obey your parents in the Lord for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). It’s true enough that the Bible does speak to the blessings of obedience. Ephesians 6:2 reminds us that the command of children to honor their parents is the first command with a promise, that it would go well in the land. We start, however, with “for this is right.”
While Christians instinctively lean toward the principled approach we also find ourselves pulled toward the consequential. We don’t like seeing bad things happen, and so begin to strategize. And that’s when the wheels start to fall off. Most Christians know that it is wrong to disobey a direct and clear command of God most high. But most Christians also believe it would be great to be more like God, that it is desirable to be made wise. And so, the very first consequentialists, believing their disobedience would bring blessing, ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They thought it would be better to disobey than to obey.
Consequentialism is no way to make moral decisions. And arguing the awful consequences of not doing so is just begging the question. God promises that if we obey Him He will bless. If not, He will curse. We don’t have access to the future. We do have the law of God. Ours is not to strategize, but to obey. God has not placed upon us a burden to make sure things work out the way we would like. He has not called us to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He has instead called us to hearken to His voice and to obey all that He commands. And called us to teach the nations to do the same.
We would be wise to remember that the challenge of ethics is much less knowing how to discern right and wrong, much more doing what we know the right to be. Consequentialism is just another in our bag of rationalizations that always let us down. Let us do the right because it is right, because it is right to trust our Father and because we are usually wrong.
Thesis 35
We must discipline our children in accordance with the Bible rather than psychology.
Our tendency is to believe that the devil creates false worldviews for the purpose of fooling unbelievers. But the devil doesn’t score any points on unbelievers. To blind the blind isn’t anything to write home about. Instead the devil creates false worldviews for the sake of seducing those who ought to know better. Darwinism wasn’t invented to mislead the gullible like Darwin. Neither, however, was it created principally to get Christians to believe it. Instead the goal is for Christians to lose confidence in what the Bible has to say. Even when evangelicals reject Darwinism, we still tend to see scientists in lab coats as the really smart ones, while we Christians just fell off the turnip truck.
This is not a problem for believers, however, only in the hard sciences. We confess with our lips that the Bible equips us for every good work, but we still tend to believe that it is scholars with important letters after their names that really know things. The Apostle Paul may be the expert on theology, but the panel of experts hired by the editorial team down at Ladies Better Home Bluebook surely must have the wisdom we need for raising well adjusted children. When the Bible bumps up against these experts, we find ourselves, even as too many of us do about creation, accommodating the Bible to the latest experts. We make the Bible give ground and make room for the experts.
We are told, for instance, by the experts that corporal punishment of children will only teach children to solve their problems through violence. On the other hand, the Bible says with the utmost clarity, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). Our calling, as always, is to repent and believe. We are to believe the promises of God, and not the folly of this world.
We are told by the experts that our children need to find their own identity, that the important thing for the parent is to lay before their children as many choices as possible, that they might live authentic lives. On the other hand, the Bible says with the utmost clarity, “Fathers do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). Our calling, as always, is to repent and believe. We are to believe the promises of God, and not the folly of this world.
We will cease to be intimidated by the wisdom of the world when we learn to believe what God has told us. He has made foolish the wisdom of the world. The “foolishness” of God is wiser than men and the weakness of God is stronger than men. We ought everywhere to believe and obey God rather than men. We must do so first as we raise up our children for His kingdom and or His glory.
Don’t forget that today, at 7:00 eastern we continue our live study, working together through my father’s classic work, The Holiness of God. We will cover this week chapter 2. All are welcome to join us online. If, however, you are in the area, you are welcome to join us in our home. We serve a meal to our guests at 6:00. Do please let us know if you’d like to be here in person for the study or both the meal and the study. We hope to see you here.
San Francisco Giants relief pitcher Sam Coonrod made headlines last week when, for the west coast opener of this year’s abbreviated baseball season, he alone did not kneel during a planned video presentation from Morgan Freeman about the racial strife the nation is going through. Sam explained that he had no desire to offend anyone but that his Christian faith precludes him from kneeling before anyone but Jesus. Such has not and will not satisfy the woke.
Nor is this the first time such has happened. Roughly thirty years ago the Giants baseball club determined to play a game bedecked in a red ribbon that symbolized solidarity with AIDS victims, one Christian, a relief pitcher, Mark Dewey refused, though he eventually wore the ribbon, sideways, so that it looked like the ICHTHUS fish. Such did not satisfy the woke.
Before we boldly take our stand like a bevy of Martin Luthers we would be wise to remember a painful lesson Timothy had to learn. Even after the Jerusalem Council ruled that Gentile believers need not be circumcised, indeed after Paul insisted that the Gentile believer Titus must not be circumcised, Paul encouraged Timothy to be circumcised. Timothy was born of a Jewish mother and Gentile father. His circumcision, please note, wasn’t done for the sake of Jewish believers, but for the sake of Jewish non-believers. Timothy went through this excruciating procedure simply to ensure that the message of Jesus not get lost in a needless offense unbelievers might have taken.
“All things to all men” means something. It is not a craven sell-out to worldliness. It means a deep, God-honoring desire to see the elect brought in. Which ought to inform our thinking. It, in fact, gives us our first principle- in adiaphorous matters, embrace away. Adiaphorous matters are those which do not touch on matters of morality. When Hudson Taylor made the then radical decision to dress as the Chinese he was ministering to dressed, and to style his hair the same way, he didn’t break, nor bend, nor step close to the law of God.
The second principle, however, is this- in matters of clear moral import, have nothing to do with the deeds of darkness. When Daniel was pressured to not pray to the living God he not only didn’t obey those in authority, he didn’t hide his disobedience. Daniel did not know God would deliver him from the lions. He did know what his duty was, and he followed it.
Which leaves us with the messy middle. Consider how narrow the line is between these two comments, “I believe black lives matter” and “I support Black Lives Matter.” All Christians should be eager to affirm the first and reluctant to affirm the second. It is not immoral to affirm that black lives matter because it is not in any way a denial that all lives, blue lives, baby lives matter. In fact, it is a subset of the truth that all lives matter. It is immoral to affirm the latter because the organization Black Lives Matter is anti-Christian.
The solution, it seems to me, is just what Sam Coonrod and Mark Dewey did. They didn’t rant and rave and froth at the mouth. They didn’t cave either. They simply, gently, respectfully affirmed their own convictions. That didn’t keep them from being hated. It just kept them from misrepresenting their heavenly Father. The heat is coming fast. May He give us the courage, the wisdom, the grace to be sure that the only offense we give is the offense of the gospel.
